So someone was telling me that the Pope isn't as big of a difference between the (Oriental) Orthodox and the Catholics as some people make it out to be. I was saying that I am not a papist. He mentioned that papal infallibility is often misinterpreted. (I'm coming from a Protestant background via study of Catholicism and on back to Orthodoxy.) Umm... Please help me clarify a couple things.

What is the difference between the Roman pope and the Orthodox bishops in terms of:

their roles,their power,and their authority.

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

Thanks!

« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 05:33:26 PM by Anastasia1 »

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

So someone was telling me that the Pope isn't as big of a difference between the (Oriental) Orthodox and the Catholics as some people make it out to be. I was saying that I am not a papist. He mentioned that papal infallibility is often misinterpreted. (I'm coming from a Protestant background via study of Catholicism and on back to Orthodoxy.) Umm... Please help me clarify a couple things.

What is the difference between the Roman pope and the Orthodox bishops in terms of:

their roles,their power,and their authority.

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

Thanks!

The Pope can act unilaterally, that is without the agreement or even permission of other bishops. And in the same breath, he can impose on other bishops. He can depose other bishops but himself cannot be deposed even by a council. And since 1983, no other bishop can be ordained without his permission.

The Pope IN the Oriental Orthodox Church is not the Pope OF the Oriental Orthodox Church, but of the Coptic Church specifically. Our Church is a conciliar church, with the Pope of Alexandria having a "primacy among equal bishops", but nevertheless a diocesan bishop like other diocesan bishops, with Alexandria (and Cairo) as his main diocese.

Not sure about the Pope of Rome. It seems like an elevation of a status above episcopacy, whereas for the Coptic Church, it is a level in episcopacy.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 06:15:31 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

What is the difference between the Roman pope and the Orthodox bishops in terms of:

their roles,their power,and their authority.

To Roman Catholics, the Pope of Rome has universal authority and jurisdiction. That is to say that he has authority over any and every other bishop, regardless of jurisdiction. He is above in power, stature, and authority over the entire visible church. Councils are effectively below the Pope in authority. Roman Catholics also believe in "papal infallibility," which recognizes as infallible whatever the Pope says "ex cathedra," which means most of what he says/does is not considered infallible.

To Orthodox, the Pope of Rome was a bishop that was "first among equals," and had a position of extreme honor and what he said had considerable weight behind it, but he was limited in authority to his own jurisdiction alone. I believe that the only inter-jurisdictional authority within Orthodoxy would be councils, and no single bishop/pope. Further, no single bishop has the ability to ever speak infallibly for the church.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

In day to day functions, and in their initial roles of ordination, Popes and Patriarchs alike are the same thing. The differences between the Latin Pope and the Orthodox Patriarch only play out much later, particularly after different political developments in Europe around the Reformation. Patriarchs in the Orthodox jurisdictions have unilateral authority in many matters, but we do not take their words as Gospel. I am not quite sure that for most of Latin history anyone took the Popes' word as gospel either. That seems a more recent development, and in all actuality one in retaliation against many political developments across the fading Holy Roman Empire. The Pope became a superior bishop to try and hemorrhage the bleeding when so many heretical bishops splintered away into Protestantism (England, Germany, I'm looking at you ) The Patriarch is a first among equals, but in regards to Council decisions (local or universal) their decisions are the signatory conclusion. I understand that traditionally they have what we today might think of the executive veto priveleges, perhaps even line-item? In many other symbolic functions, the Patriarch and Latin Popes are the same thing. We definitely do not agree with the legal concepts of Papal Infallibility, but that is a later development if you ask me. For the first thousand years, and probably five hundred years after that, we were probably the same thing. The Latin Popes had fairly strong control and influence in their own jurisdictions. Were they invincible? No, they suffered as many invasions, exiles, and anti-popes as any Orthodox Bishop (our father Saint Athanasius I'm lookin at you ) which implies that they hardly had any authoritarian control of their Latin leadership, political and clerical. In Orthodox Jurisdictions, the Patriarch has a lot of sway and influence as well, with equal amounts of strife and sometimes derision. After all, they are the Apostles (the outcasts of the earth as Paul asserts)

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 02:25:12 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

So someone was telling me that the Pope isn't as big of a difference between the (Oriental) Orthodox and the Catholics as some people make it out to be.

Hi Anastasia. I myself have heard it claimed repeatedly, not too long ago, that Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy are actually very close. Maybe if I hear it another 6 or so times, I'll start to believe it.

What is the difference between the Roman pope and the Orthodox bishops in terms of:

their roles,their power,and their authority.

To Roman Catholics, the Pope of Rome has universal authority and jurisdiction. That is to say that he has authority over any and every other bishop, regardless of jurisdiction. He is above in power, stature, and authority over the entire visible church. Councils are effectively below the Pope in authority. Roman Catholics also believe in "papal infallibility," which recognizes as infallible whatever the Pope says "ex cathedra," which means most of what he says/does is not considered infallible.

To Orthodox, the Pope of Rome was a bishop that was "first among equals," and had a position of extreme honor and what he said had considerable weight behind it, but he was limited in authority to his own jurisdiction alone. I believe that the only inter-jurisdictional authority within Orthodoxy would be councils, and no single bishop/pope. Further, no single bishop has the ability to ever speak infallibly for the church.

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

There is.

Ok, anyone know what that is then?

I'm not the best person to answer this, since I'm neither; but Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox disagree on ecumenical councils (7 vs. 3). Although it should be noted that some believe that they will soon resolve their differences and come into full communion with each other.

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

There is.

Ok, anyone know what that is then?

I'm not the best person to answer this, since I'm neither; but Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox disagree on ecumenical councils (7 vs. 3). Although it should be noted that some believe that they will soon resolve their differences and come into full communion with each other.

"Soon" in Orthodox time could mean, well....just about anything, really, but probably nothing less than 25-1,000 years .

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

There is.

Ok, anyone know what that is then?

I'm not the best person to answer this, since I'm neither; but Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox disagree on ecumenical councils (7 vs. 3). Although it should be noted that some believe that they will soon resolve their differences and come into full communion with each other.

Ok, I meant difference in the distribution and kinds of power and authority such as would constitute a more fundamental difference in church structure, not just disputed doctrine over the nature of Christ.

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

There is.

Ok, anyone know what that is then?

I'm not the best person to answer this, since I'm neither; but Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox disagree on ecumenical councils (7 vs. 3). Although it should be noted that some believe that they will soon resolve their differences and come into full communion with each other.

Ok, I meant difference in the distribution and kinds of power and authority such as would constitute a more fundamental difference in church structure, not just disputed doctrine over the nature of Christ.

Oh, I think I may understand what you're saying now: that in the OP, it wouldn't have made any difference if you had said Eastern Orthodox rather than Oriental Orthodox. Or am I still misunderstanding you?

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

There is.

Ok, anyone know what that is then?

I'm not the best person to answer this, since I'm neither; but Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox disagree on ecumenical councils (7 vs. 3). Although it should be noted that some believe that they will soon resolve their differences and come into full communion with each other.

Ok, I meant difference in the distribution and kinds of power and authority such as would constitute a more fundamental difference in church structure, not just disputed doctrine over the nature of Christ.

Oh, I think I may understand what you're saying now: that in the OP, it wouldn't have made any difference if you had said Eastern Orthodox rather than Oriental Orthodox. Or am I still misunderstanding you?

I think you understand right. Thanks!

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

Further, no single bishop has the ability to ever speak infallibly for the church.

Actually in Orthodoxy, anyone can be infallible. Or more accurately, only God is infallible. And we can receive God's message through anyone. Of course such statements by a person has to be tested by tradition and time to be true. If it is universally accepted by the Church then it is infallible. But that person could have long passed from this life by the time that happens. Unlike in Catholicism where the Pope can say, "yeah, this is ex cathedra so you (Catholics) have to believe it." Right there and then it is infallible. In Orthodoxy, infallibility is not instant and as you said, not inherent in one person or one office.

So someone was telling me that the Pope isn't as big of a difference between the (Oriental) Orthodox and the Catholics as some people make it out to be. I was saying that I am not a papist. He mentioned that papal infallibility is often misinterpreted. (I'm coming from a Protestant background via study of Catholicism and on back to Orthodoxy.) Umm... Please help me clarify a couple things.

What is the difference between the Roman pope and the Orthodox bishops in terms of:

their roles,their power,and their authority.

I do not know if this is any different if I say Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, though I doubt there is a difference. If there is, please let me know.

Thanks!

This claim sounds familiar. I wonder if it's the same guy who makes these sort of claims about the Oriental Orthodox in general (he'd have you convinced that Oriental Orthodox theology is Thomism, if he could get his way)...

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"Soon" in Orthodox time could mean, well....just about anything, really, but probably nothing less than 25-1,000 years .

How long did your church take to apologize for the Fourth Crusade? It was 800 years

There we go again...

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

"Soon" in Orthodox time could mean, well....just about anything, really, but probably nothing less than 25-1,000 years .

How long did your church take to apologize for the Fourth Crusade? It was 800 years

The Roman Catholic Church was under no obligation to apologize for the Fourth Crusade. The sack of Constantinople was not authorized by the Church and was in fact reacted to rather harshly by the Pope when he learned of it (If I recall correctly, he excommunicated the whole bunch.) You might as well ask both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church to apologize for all the souls they endangered and possibly lead to damnation through Arianism.

"Soon" in Orthodox time could mean, well....just about anything, really, but probably nothing less than 25-1,000 years .

How long did your church take to apologize for the Fourth Crusade? It was 800 years

The Roman Catholic Church was under no obligation to apologize for the Fourth Crusade. The sack of Constantinople was not authorized by the Church and was in fact reacted to rather harshly by the Pope when he learned of it (If I recall correctly, he excommunicated the whole bunch.) You might as well ask both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church to apologize for all the souls they endangered and possibly lead to damnation through Arianism.

Please don't start this argument again. There are threads here in the past that deal with this distorted version of history.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

"Soon" in Orthodox time could mean, well....just about anything, really, but probably nothing less than 25-1,000 years .

How long did your church take to apologize for the Fourth Crusade? It was 800 years

The Roman Catholic Church was under no obligation to apologize for the Fourth Crusade. The sack of Constantinople was not authorized by the Church and was in fact reacted to rather harshly by the Pope when he learned of it (If I recall correctly, he excommunicated the whole bunch.) You might as well ask both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church to apologize for all the souls they endangered and possibly lead to damnation through Arianism.

Aside from the Pope giving it his retrospective blessing, and then JPII apologising for it, if you want to argue with two different popes, you're more than welcome to start a thread on it